Cognitive structure and/or development	231

King and Kitchener’s model of reflective judgment

Description and intended use

King and Kitchener propose a seven-stage model of reflective judgment in their book Reflective judgment: understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults (1994). The model is aimed at those who work in the area of critical thinking at college level, particularly in regard to its development and assessment, though the authors also indicate that it should be of value for use in schools and in other adult learning contexts. The model is based on Dewey’s (1933, 1938) conception of reflective thinking and the epistemological issues resulting from attempts to resolve ‘illstructured problems’. It draws on other work, such as Fischer’s (1980) skill theory and is related to the work of Perry (1970) and Baron (1985). It is summarised in table 5.2.

Evaluation

King and Kitchener (1994) distinguish reflective judgment from logical, verbal and moral reasoning. Their model is based on 15 years of theory building and empirical research into the development of reflective judgment in late adolescence and middle adulthood. It shows further development from their original study of reflective judgment (Kitchener and King, 1981). On the basis of more than 30 studies, they claim – we believe fairly – that the model is complex, inclusive and integrated, with qualitative differences that are stable across domains observable in reasoning about knowledge.

Hofer and Pintrich (1997) have pointed to structural similarities between King and Kitchener’s model, Perry’s account (1968, 1970) of intellectual and ethical development and the work of Belenky et al. (1986) on ‘Women’s Ways of Knowing’. King and Kitchener’s concept of stages is heavily influenced by Piagetian and neo-Piagetian theory.

There are two related issues which King and Kitchener do not fully address. The first is the extent to which reflective judgment, as assessed by being asked to solve a set of ill-structured problems, relates to thinking and performance in other fields – personal and professional. The second issue is a concern about whether, in a series of

232 Frameworks for Thinking

Table 5.2. King and Kitchener’s seven-stage model

Pre-reflective thought

Stage 1 Knowing is limited to single concrete observations: what a person observes is true. Discrepancies are not noticed.

Stage 2 Two categories for knowing: right answers and wrong answers. Good authorities have knowledge; bad authorities lack knowledge. Differences can be resolved by more complete information.

Stage 3 In some areas, knowledge is certain and authorities have knowledge. In other areas, knowledge is temporarily uncertain; only personal beliefs can be known.

Quasi-reflective thought

Stage 4 The concept that knowledge is unknown in several specific cases can lead to the abstract generalisation that knowledge is uncertain. Knowledge and justification are poorly differentiated.

Stage 5 Knowledge is uncertain and must be understood within a context; thus justification is context-specific. Knowledge is limited by the perspective of the person who knows.

Stage 6 Knowledge is uncertain, but constructed by comparing evidence and opinion on different sides of an issue or across contexts.

Reflective thought

Stage 7 Knowledge is the outcome of a process of reasonable enquiry. This principle is equivalent to a general principle across domains. Knowledge is provisional.

reflective judgment interviews, respondents simply learn to provide more sophisticated answers to a specific set of increasingly familiar questions.

The model identifies a progression of seven distinct sets of judgments about knowledge and how knowledge is acquired. Each set has its own logical coherence and is called a stage, with each successive stage ‘posited to represent a more complex and effective form of justification, providing more inclusive and better integrated assumptions for evaluating and defending a point of view’ (King and Kitchener, 1994, 13). Individuals are said to pass through these stages

Cognitive structure and/or development	233

in the order specified, though they may operate across a range of stages at any point in time. This still leaves questions about how individuals progress through the stages and about the relationship between maturation, education and culture.

King and Kitchener have studied the relationship between reflective judgment and moral reasoning. While they endorse the view that the college experience should provide an education in character development, they see progress through the seven stages of development in reflective judgment as furnishing necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for corresponding progress in moral reasoning.

The model of reflective judgment is a coherent, well-argued and extensively researched account of the development of epistemological reasoning, though there are some issues that remain unresolved. The authors acknowledge limitations in their sample selection, which may not make it representative of a larger population outside US midwestern high-school and college students. Also, the epistemological assumptions at stages 6 and 7 may be less prevalent in some cultures (Bidell and Fischer, 1992).

There is evidence from other sources that assumptions about knowledge do alter according to the subject context (e.g. Schoenfeld, 1992). This suggests that the confidence of the authors that students’ scores on subject-based problems are almost identical to standard reflective judgment interview scores may need further investigation across disciplines.

Chapter nine of King and Kitchener’s book contains explicit recommendations for teaching, using the reflective judgment model as an ‘heuristic tool’ to help educators to develop courses or activities to help learners to think more reflectively and make more reasoned judgments. The basis for using the model is set out in a series of assumptions, supporting activities to develop personal relevance and a detailed breakdown of each of the stages 2–7 with characteristics, instructional goals, difficult tasks, sample activities or assignments and developmental support. These are sufficiently clear and detailed to be applicable to educational practice in a range of settings. The main challenge in using the model is how to develop a clear understanding of each of the seven stages and how to recognise learners’ behaviours at each stage.

234 Frameworks for Thinking

Summary: King and Kitchener

				Relevance for teachers
Purpose and structure		Some key features			and learning
Main purpose(s):		Terminology:		Intended audience:
•	to promote and	•	accessible: technical	•	teachers of high
	assess reasoned		terms are clearly		school and college
	reflective thinking		explained and		students
	when dealing with		examples are given	•	researchers
	ill-structured
	problems
Domains addressed:		Presentation:		Contexts:
•	cognitive	•	well-written, with	•	education
•	conative		clear chapter	•	citizenship
			summaries and
			good illustrative
			use of interview
			material
Broad categories		Theory base:		Pedagogical stance:
covered:		•	Dewey	•	teachers need to
•	self-engagement	•	Piaget		provide structures
•	reflective thinking	•	Kohlberg		and languages that
•	productive thinking	•	Perry		enhance and
•	building				challenge
	understanding				students’ capacities
•	information-gathering
Classification by:		Values:		Practical
•	stages in coming to	•	liberal tolerance	illustrations
	understand the nature	•	it is important to	for teachers:
	of knowledge and belief		work for shared	•	the description of
			understandings		characteristics,
			through the use		instruction goals,
			of reason		difficult tasks and
					sample activities is a
					helpful and practical
					section, aimed at

teachers and other educators